GrundrisseFoundationsoftheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy(RoughDraft)

KarlMarx

Written:185761;Published:inGerman193941;Source:Grundrisse,PenguinBooksinassociationwithNewLeftReview,1973;Translatedby:MartinNicolaus;Notesby:BenFowkes;Scannedby:TimDelaney,1997;HTMLMark-up:AndyBlunden,2002;DaveAllinson,2015;EbookConversion:DaveAllinson,2015.

Thistranslationislicensedbythecopyrightowner,MartinNicolaus,exclusivelyto MIA. Publication on other online sites is prohibited. Editorial notes areincludedbypermissionofBenFowkes.

Availableonlineat:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/index.htm

KarlMarx

2

Contents

NoteontheTextAnalyticalContentsListIntroductionTheChapteronMoneyTheChapteronCapitalBastiatandCareyEditorialNotes

3

NoteontheText

Marx wrote this huge manuscript as part of his preparation for what wouldbecomeAContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy(publishedin1859)andCapital(published1867).

SovietMarxologists released several never-before-seenMarx/Engels works inthe 1930s. Most were early works like theEconomic and PhilosophicalManuscriptsbuttheGrundrissestoodaloneasissuingforthfromthemostintense period of Marxs decade-long, in-depth study of economics. It is anextremely rich and thought-provoking work, showing signs of humanism andthe influence of Hegelian dialectic method. Do note, though, Marx did notintenditforpublicationasis,soitcanbestylisticallyveryroughinplaces.

Theseriesofsevennotebookswererough-draftedbyMarx,chieflyforpurposesofself-clarification,duringthewinterof1857-8.Themanuscriptbecamelostincircumstancesstillunknownandwasfirsteffectivelypublished,intheGermanoriginal, in 1953. A limited edition was published by Foreign LanguagePublishers inMoscow in two volumes, 1939and1941 respectively, under theeditorship of the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute, Moscow. The first volumecontained the introduction and the seven notebooks translated here. ThesecondaddedfragmentsfromMarxs1851notebooksofexcerptsfromRicardo,the fragment Bastiat and Carey (also included in this translation), andmiscellaneous related material; also extensive annotations and sources. Aphoto-offset reprint of the two volumesbound in one,minus illustrations andfacsimiles,wasissuedbyDietzVerlag,Berlin(E.), in1953,andisthebasisofthe present translation. It is referred to hereafter asGrundrisse.Rosdolskystates thatonly threeor fourcopiesof the1939-41editionever reached thewesternworld.

KarlMarx

4

AnalyticalContentsList

INTRODUCTION(NotebookM)(1)Productioningeneral(2) General relation between production, distribution, exchange andconsumption(3)Themethodofpoliticaleconomy(4) Means (forces) of production and relations of production, relations ofproductionandrelationsofcirculationTHECHAPTERONMONEY(NotebooksIandII,pp.17)DarimonstheoryofcrisesGoldexportandcrisesConvertibilityandnotecirculationValueandpriceTransformationofthecommodityintoexchangevalue;moneyContradictionsinthemoneyrelation(1)Contradictionbetweencommodityasproductandcommodityasexchangevalue(2)Contradictionbetweenpurchaseandsale(3)Contradictionbetweenexchangeforthesakeofexchangeandexchangeforthesakeofcommodities(Aphorisms)(4) Contradiction between money as particular commodity and money asgeneralcommodity(TheEconomistandtheMorningStaronmoney)Attemptstoovercomethecontradictionsbytheissueoftime-chitsExchangevalueasmediationofprivateinterestsExchangevalue(money)associalbondSocialrelationswhichcreateanundevelopedsystemofexchangeTheproductbecomesacommodity; thecommoditybecomesexchangevalue;theexchangevalueofthecommoditybecomesmoneyMoneyasmeasureMoneyasobjectificationofgenerallabourtime(Incidentalremarkongoldandsilver)DistinctionbetweenparticularlabourtimeandgenerallabourtimeDistinctionbetweenplanneddistributionof labour timeandmeasurementofexchangevaluesbylabourtime(StraboonmoneyamongtheAlbanians)

Grundrisse

5

Thepreciousmetalsassubjectsofthemoneyrelation(a)Goldandsilverinrelationtotheothermetals(b)Fluctuationsinthevalue-relationsbetweenthedifferentmetals(c)and(d)(headingsonly):Sourcesofgoldandsilver;moneyascoinCirculationofmoneyandoppositecirculationofcommoditiesGeneralconceptofcirculation(a)Circulationcirculatesexchangevaluesintheformofprices(Distinctionbetweenrealmoneyandaccountingmoney)(b)Moneyasthemediumofexchange(Whatdeterminesthequantityofmoneyrequiredforcirculation)(Commenton(a))CommoditycirculationrequiresappropriationthroughalienationCirculationasanendlesslyrepeatedprocessThepriceasexternaltoandindependentofthecommodityCreationofgeneralmediumofexchangeExchangeasaspecialbusinessDoublemotionofcirculation:CM;MC,andMC;CMThreecontradictoryfunctionsofmoney(1) Money as general material of contracts, as measuring unit of exchangevalues(2)Moneyasmediumofexchangeandrealizerofprices(Money, as representative of price, allows commodities to be exchanged atequivalentprices)(Anexampleofconfusionbetweenthecontradictoryfunctionsofmoney)(Moneyasparticularcommodityandmoneyasgeneralcommodity)(3) Money as money: as material representative of wealth (accumulation ofmoney)(Dissolutionofancientcommunitiesthroughmoney)(Money,unlikecoin,hasauniversalcharacter)(Moneyinitsthirdfunctionisthenegation(negativeunity)ofitscharacterasmediumofcirculationandmeasure)(Moneyinitsmetallicbeing;accumulationofgoldandsilver)(Headingsonmoney,tobeelaboratedlater)THECHAPTERONCAPITAL(NotebooksIIpp.828,IIIVII)TheChapteronMoneyasCapitalDifficultyingraspingmoneyinitsfullydevelopedcharacterasmoneySimpleexchange:relationsbetweentheexchangers(Critiqueofsocialistsandharmonizers:Bastiat,Proudhon)

KarlMarx

6

SECTIONONE:THEPRODUCTIONPROCESSOFCAPITALNothingisexpressedwhencapitalischaracterizedmerelyasasumofvaluesLandedpropertyandcapitalCapital comes from circulation; its content is exchange value; merchantcapital,moneycapital,andmoneyinterestCirculation presupposes another process; motion between presupposedextremesTransitionfromcirculationtocapitalistproductionCapitalisaccumulatedlabour(etc.)CapitalisasumofvaluesusedfortheproductionofvaluesCirculation,andexchangevaluederivingfromcirculation,thepresuppositionofcapitalExchange value emerging from circulation, a presupposition of circulation,preservingandmultiplyingitselfinitbymeansoflabourProductandcapital.Valueandcapital.ProudhonCapitalandlabour.ExchangevalueandusevalueforexchangevalueMoneyanditsusevalue(labour)inthisrelationcapital.Self-multiplicationofvalueisitsonlymovementCapital, as regards substance, objectified labour. Its antithesis living,productivelabourProductivelabourandlabourasperformanceofaserviceProductiveandunproductivelabour.A.Smithetc.ThetwodifferentprocessesintheexchangeofcapitalwithlabourCapitalandmodernlandedpropertyThemarketExchangebetweencapitalandlabour.PieceworkwagesValueoflabourpowerShareofthewagelaboureringeneralwealthdeterminedonlyquantitativelyMoneyistheworkersequivalent;hethusconfrontscapitalasanequalButtheaimofhisexchangeissatisfactionofhisneed.MoneyforhimisonlymediumofcirculationSavings,self-denialasmeansoftheworkersenrichmentValuelessnessanddevaluationoftheworkeraconditionofcapital(Labourpowerascapital!)WagesnotproductiveThe exchange between capital and labour belongswithin simple circulation,doesnotenrichtheworkerSeparationoflabourandpropertythepreconditionofthisexchange

Grundrisse

7

Labour as object absolute poverty, labour as subject general possibility ofwealthLabourwithoutparticularspecificityconfrontscapitalLabourprocessabsorbedintocapital(Capitalandcapitalist)ProductionprocessascontentofcapitalTheworkerrelatestohislabourasexchangevalue,thecapitalistasusevalueTheworkerdivests himself of labour as thewealth-producingpower; capitalappropriatesitassuchTransformationoflabourintocapitalRealizationprocess(Costsofproduction)Mereself-preservation,non-multiplicationofvaluecontradicts theessenceofcapitalCapitalentersthecostofproductionascapital.Interest-bearingcapital(Parentheses on: original accumulation of capital, historic presuppositions ofcapital,productioningeneral)Surplusvalue.SurpluslabourtimeValueoflabour.HowitisdeterminedConditionsfortheself-realizationofcapitalCapitalisproductiveascreatorofsurpluslabourButthisisonlyahistoricalandtransitoryphenomenonTheories of surplus value (Ricardo; the Physiocrats; Adam Smith; Ricardoagain)Surplusvalueandproductiveforce.RelationwhentheseincreaseResult:inproportionasnecessarylabourisalreadydiminished,therealizationofcapitalbecomesmoredifficultConcerningincreasesinthevalueofcapitalLabourdoesnot reproduce the value ofmaterial and instrument, but ratherpreserves it by relating to them in the labour process as to their objectiveconditionsAbsolutesurpluslabourtime.RelativeIt is not the quantity of living labour, but rather its quality as labourwhichpreservesthelabourtimealreadycontainedinthematerialThechangeofformandsubstanceinthedirectproductionprocessIt is inherent in the simple production process that the previous stage ofproductionispreservedthroughthesubsequentonePreservationoftheoldusevaluebynewlabour

KarlMarx

8

The quantity of objectified labour is preserved because contact with livinglabourpreservesitsqualityasusevaluefornewlabourIn the real production process, the separation of labour from its objectivemoments of existence is suspended. But in this process labour is alreadyincorporatedincapitalThe capitalist obtains surplus labour free of charge together with themaintenanceofthevalueofmaterialandinstrumentThroughtheappropriationofpresentlabour,capitalalreadypossessesaclaimtotheappropriationoffuturelabourConfusionofprofitandsurplusvalue.CareyserroneouscalculationThe capitalist, who does not pay theworker for the preservation of the oldvalue, then demands remuneration for giving the worker permission topreservetheoldcapitalSurplusValueandProfitDifferencebetweenconsumptionoftheinstrumentandofwages.Theformerconsumedintheproductionprocess,thelatteroutsideitIncreaseofsurplusvalueanddecreaseinrateofprofitMultiplicationofsimultaneousworkingdaysMachineryGrowthoftheconstantpartofcapitalinrelationtothevariablepartspentonwages=growthoftheproductivityoflabourProportion in which capital has to increase in order to employ the samenumberofworkersifproductivityrisesPercentageoftotalcapitalcanexpressverydifferentrelationsCapital(likepropertyingeneral)restsontheproductivityoflabourIncrease of surplus labour time. Increase of simultaneous working days.(Population)(Population can increase in proportion as necessary labour time becomessmaller)Transition from the process of the production of capital into the process ofcirculationSECTIONTWO:THECIRCULATIONPROCESSOFCAPITALDevaluationofcapitalitselfowingtoincreaseofproductiveforces(Competition)Capital as unity and contradiction of the production process and therealizationprocessCapitalaslimittoproduction.OverproductionDemandbytheworkersthemselvesBarrierstocapitalistproduction

Grundrisse

9

Overproduction;ProudhonPriceofthecommodityandlabourtimeThecapitalistdoesnotselltoodear;butstillabovewhatthethingcostshimPricecanfallbelowvaluewithoutdamagetocapitalNumberandunit(measure)importantinthemultiplicationofpricesSpecific accumulation of capital. (Transformation of surplus labour intocapital)ThedeterminationofvalueandofpricesThegeneralrateofprofitThecapitalistmerelysellsathisowncostofproduction,thenitisatransfertoanothercapitalist.TheworkergainsalmostnothingtherebyBarrierofcapitalistproduction.Relationofsurpluslabourtonecessarylabour.ProportionofthesurplusconsumedbycapitaltothattransformedintocapitalDevaluationduringcrisesCapitalcomingoutoftheproductionprocessbecomesmoneyagain(Parenthesisoncapitalingeneral)SurplusLabourorSurplusValueBecomesSurplusCapitalAll the determinants of capitalist production now appear as the result of(wage)labouritselfTherealizationprocessoflabouratthesametimeitsde-realizationprocessFormationofsurpluscapitalISurpluscapitalIIInversionofthelawofappropriationChiefresultoftheproductionandrealizationprocessOriginalAccumulationofCapitalOncedevelopedhistorically,capitalitselfcreatestheconditionsofitsexistence(Performanceofpersonalservices,asopposedtowagelabour)(Parenthesis on inversion of the law of property, real alien relation of theworkertohisproduct,divisionoflabour,machinery)Forms which precede capitalist production. (Concerning the process whichprecedestheformationofthecapitalrelationoroforiginalaccumulation)ExchangeoflabourforlabourrestsontheworkerspropertylessnessCirculationofcapitalandcirculationofmoneyProduction process and circulation process moments of production. Theproductivityofthedifferentcapitals(branchesofindustry)determinesthatoftheindividualcapitalCirculation period. Velocity of circulation substitutes for volume of capital.Mutualdependenceofcapitalsinthevelocityoftheircirculation

KarlMarx

10

ThefourmomentsintheturnoverofcapitalMoment II tobeconsideredhere: transformationof theproduct intomoney;durationofthisoperationTransportcostsCirculationcostsMeansofcommunicationandtransportDivisionofthebranchesoflabourConcentrationofmanyworkers;productiveforceofthisconcentrationGeneralasdistinctfromparticularconditionsofproductionTransporttomarket(spatialconditionofcirculation)belongsintheproductionprocessCredit,thetemporalmomentofcirculationCapitaliscirculatingcapitalInfluenceofcirculationonthedeterminationofvalue;circulationtime=timeofdevaluationDifference between the capitalist mode of production and all earlier ones(universality,propagandisticnature)(Capitalitselfisthecontradiction)CirculationandcreationofvalueCapitalnotasourceofvalue-creationContinuityofproductionpresupposessuspensionofcirculationtimeTheoriesofSurplusValueRamsaysviewthatcapitalisitsownsourceofprofitNosurplusvalueaccordingtoRicardoslawRicardostheoryofvalue.WagesandprofitQuinceyRicardoWakefield.ConditionsofcapitalistproductionincoloniesSurplusvalueandprofit.Example(Malthus)DifferencebetweenlabourandlabourcapacityCareystheoryofthecheapeningofcapitalfortheworkerCareystheoryofthedeclineoftherateofprofitWakefieldonthecontradictionbetweenRicardostheoriesofwagelabourandofvalueBailey on dormant capital and increase of production without previousincreaseofcapitalWadesexplanationofcapital.Capital,collectiveforce.Capital,civilizationRossi.Whatiscapital?Israwmaterialcapital?Arewagesnecessaryforit?

Grundrisse

11

Malthus.TheoryofvalueandofwagesAim of capitalist production value (money), not commodity, use value etc.ChalmersDifferenceinreturn.Interruptionoftheproductionprocess.Totaldurationoftheproductionprocess.UnequalperiodsofproductionThe concept of the free labourer contains the pauper. Population andoverpopulationNecessarylabour.Surpluslabour.Surpluspopulation.SurpluscapitalAdamSmith:workassacrificeAdamSmith:theoriginofprofitSurpluslabour.Profit.WagesImmovablecapital.Returnofcapital.Fixedcapital.JohnStuartMillTurnoverofcapital.Circulationprocess.ProductionprocessCirculationcosts.CirculationtimeCapitals change of form and of substance; different forms of capital;circulatingcapitalasgeneralcharacterofcapitalFixed(tieddown)capitalandcirculatingcapitalConstantandvariablecapitalCompetitionSurplusvalue.Productiontime.Circulationtime.TurnovertimeCompetition(continued)Partofcapitalinproductiontime,partincirculationtimeSurplus value and production phase. Number of reproductions of capital =numberofturnoversChangeofformandofmatterinthecirculationofcapitalCMC.MCMDifferencebetweenproductiontimeandlabourtimeFormationofamercantileestate;creditSmall-scale circulation. Theprocess of exchangebetween capital and labourcapacitygenerallyThreefoldcharacter,ormode,ofcirculationFixedcapitalandcirculatingcapitalInfluenceoffixedcapitalonthetotalturnovertimeofcapitalFixedcapital.Meansoflabour.MachineTranspositionofpowersof labour intopowersofcapitalboth in fixedand incirculatingcapitalTowhatextentfixedcapital(machine)createsvalueFixed capital & continuity of the production process. Machinery & livinglabour

KarlMarx

12

Contradiction between the foundation of bourgeois production (value asmeasure)anditsdevelopmentSignificanceofthedevelopmentoffixedcapital(forthedevelopmentofcapitalgenerally)Thechiefroleofcapitalistocreatedisposabletime;contradictoryformofthisincapitalDurabilityoffixedcapitalReal saving (economy)=savingof labour time=developmentofproductiveforceTrueconceptionoftheprocessofsocialproductionOwenshistoricalconceptionofindustrial(capitalist)productionCapitalandvalueofnaturalagenciesScopeoffixedcapitalindicatesthelevelofcapitalistproductionIsmoneyfixedcapitalorcirculatingcapital?Turnover time of capital consisting of fixed capital and circulating capital.ReproductiontimeoffixedcapitalThesamecommoditysometimescirculatingcapital,sometimesfixedcapitalEverymomentwhichisapresuppositionofproductionisatthesametimeitsresult,inthatitreproducesitsownconditionsThecounter-valueofcirculatingcapitalmustbeproducedwithintheyear.Notsoforfixedcapital.ItengagestheproductionofsubsequentyearsMaintenancecostsoffixedcapitalRevenueoffixedcapitalandcirculatingcapitalFreelabour=latentpauperism.EdenThesmallerthevalueoffixedcapitalinrelationtoitsproduct,themoreusefulMovableandimmovable,fixedandcirculatingConnectionofcirculationandreproductionSECTIONTHREE:CAPITALASFRUCTIFEROUS.TRANSFORMATIONOFSURPLUSVALUEINTOPROFITRateofprofit.FalloftherateofprofitSurplusvalueasprofitalwaysexpressesalesserproportionWakefield,CareyandBastiatontherateofprofitCapitalandrevenue(profit).Productionanddistribution.SismondiTransformationofsurplusvalueintoprofitLawsofthistransformationSurplusvalue=relationofsurpluslabourtonecessarylabourValueoffixedcapitalanditsproductivepowerMachineryandsurpluslabour.Recapitulationofthedoctrineofsurplusvalue

Grundrisse

13

generallyRelation between the objective conditions of production. Change in theproportionofthecomponentpartsofcapitalMISCELLANEOUSMoneyandfixedcapital:presupposesacertainamountofwealth.Relationoffixedcapitalandcirculatingcapital.(Economist)Slaveryandwagelabour;profituponalienation(Steuart)Steuart,MontanariandGougeonmoneyThewoolindustryinEnglandsinceElizabeth;silk-manufacture;iron;cottonOriginoffreewagelabour.Vagabondage.(Tuckett)Blakeonaccumulationandrateofprofit;dormantcapitalDomesticagricultureatthebeginningofthesixteenthcentury.(Tuckett)Profit. Interest. Influence of machinery on the wage fund. (WestminsterReview)Moneyasmeasureofvaluesandyardstickofprices.CritiqueoftheoriesofthestandardmeasureofmoneyTransformation of the medium of circulation into money. Formation oftreasures. Means of payment. Prices of commodities and quantity ofcirculatingmoney.ValueofmoneyCapital,notlabour,determinesthevalueofmoney.(Torrens)TheminimumofwagesCottonmachineryandworkingmenin1826.(Hodgskin)Howthemachinecreatesrawmaterial.(Economist)MachineryandsurpluslabourCapital and profit. Relation of the worker to the conditions of labour incapitalistproduction.AllpartsofcapitalbringaprofitTendencyofthemachinetoprolonglabourCottonfactoriesinEngland.ExampleformachineryandsurpluslabourExamplesfromGlasgowfortherateofprofitAlienation of the conditions of labour with the development of capital.InversionMerivale. Natural dependence of the worker in colonies to be replaced byartificialrestrictionsHowthemachinesavesmaterial.Bread.DeaudelaMalleDevelopmentofmoneyandinterestProductiveconsumption.Newman.Transformationsofcapital.EconomiccycleDrPrice.InnatepowerofcapitalProudhon.Capitalandsimpleexchange.Surplus

KarlMarx

14

NecessityoftheworkerspropertylessnessGalianiTheoryofsavings.StorchMacCulloch.Surplus.ProfitArnd.NaturalinterestInterestandprofit.CareyHowmerchanttakestheplaceofmasterMerchantwealthCommercewithequivalentsimpossible.OpdykePrincipalandinterestDoublestandardOnmoneyJamesMillsfalsetheoryofpricesRicardooncurrencyOnmoneyTheory of foreign trade. Two nationsmay exchange according to the law ofprofitinsuchawaythatbothgain,butoneisalwaysdefraudedMoneyinitsthirdrole,asmoney(I)VALUE(Thissectiontobebroughtforward)BASTIATANDCAREYBastiatseconomicharmoniesBastiatonwages

Grundrisse

15

KarlMarx

16

Introduction

LateAugustMid-September1857

1. Production, Consumption, Distribution, Exchange(Circulation)

(1)PRODUCTION

IndependentIndividuals.Eighteenth-centuryIdeas

Theobjectbeforeus,tobeginwith,materialproduction.Individuals producing in society hence socially determined individual

production is, of course, thepoint of departure. The individual and isolatedhunterandfisherman,withwhomSmithandRicardobegin,belongsamongtheunimaginativeconceitsoftheeighteenth-centuryRobinsonades,[1]whichinnoway express merely a reaction against over-sophistication and a return to amisunderstood natural life, as cultural historians imagine. As little asRousseauscontrat social, which brings naturally independent, autonomoussubjectsintorelationandconnectionbycontract,restsonsuchnaturalism.Thisis thesemblance, themerelyaestheticsemblance,of theRobinsonades,greatandsmall.Itis,rather,theanticipationofcivilsociety,inpreparationsincethesixteenthcenturyandmakinggiantstridestowardsmaturityintheeighteenth.In this society of free competition, the individual appears detached from thenaturalbondsetc.whichinearlierhistoricalperiodsmakehimtheaccessoryofadefiniteandlimitedhumanconglomerate.SmithandRicardostillstandwithboth feet on the shoulders of the eighteenth-century prophets, in whoseimaginationsthiseighteenth-centuryindividualtheproductononesideofthedissolutionofthefeudalformsofsociety,ontheothersideofthenewforcesofproductiondevelopedsincethesixteenthcenturyappearsasanideal,whoseexistence they project into the past. Not as a historic result but as historyspoint of departure. As the Natural Individual appropriate to their notion ofhumannature,notarisinghistorically,butpositedbynature.This illusionhas

Grundrisse

17

beencommon toeachnewepoch to thisday.Steuart [2] avoided this simple-mindednessbecauseasanaristocratandinantithesistotheeighteenthcentury,hehadinsomerespectsamorehistoricalfooting.Themoredeeplywegobackintohistory,themoredoestheindividual,and

hence also the producing individual, appear as dependent, as belonging to agreater whole: in a still quite natural way in the family and in the familyexpandedintotheclan[Stamm];thenlaterinthevariousformsofcommunalsociety arising out of the antitheses and fusions of the clan. Only in theeighteenth century, in civil society, do the various forms of socialconnectedness confront the individual as a mere means towards his privatepurposes,asexternalnecessity.Buttheepochwhichproducesthisstandpoint,that of the isolated individual, is also precisely that of the hitherto mostdevelopedsocial (fromthisstandpoint,general)relations.Thehumanbeing isinthemostliteralsensea,[3]notmerelyagregariousanimal,but an animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society.Production by an isolated individual outside society a rare exceptionwhichmaywelloccurwhenacivilizedperson inwhomthesocial forcesarealreadydynamicallypresent iscastbyaccident intothewilderness isasmuchofanabsurdityasisthedevelopmentoflanguagewithoutindividualslivingtogetherandtalkingtoeachother.Thereisnopointindwellingonthisanylonger.Thepoint could go entirely unmentioned if this twaddle, which had sense andreason for the eighteenth-century characters, had not been earnestly pulledback into the centre of themostmodern economicsbyBastiat, [4]Carey, [5]Proudhonetc.Of course it is a convenience forProudhonet al. tobeable togive ahistorico-philosophic account of the source of an economic relation, ofwhose historic origins he is ignorant, by inventing the myth that Adam orPrometheus stumbled on the idea ready-made, and then it was adopted, etc.Nothingismoredryandboringthanthefantasiesofalocuscommunis.[6]

Eternalization of historic relations of production. Productionanddistributioningeneral.Property

Wheneverwespeakofproduction,then,whatismeantisalwaysproductionata definite stage of social development production by social individuals. It

KarlMarx

18

might seem, therefore, that in order to talk about production at all wemusteitherpursuetheprocessofhistoricdevelopmentthroughitsdifferentphases,ordeclarebeforehandthatwearedealingwithaspecifichistoricepochsuchase.g. modern bourgeois production, which is indeed our particular theme.However, all epochs of production have certain common traits, commoncharacteristics. Production in general is an abstraction, but a rationalabstractioninsofarasitreallybringsoutandfixesthecommonelementandthus saves us repetition. Still, this general category, this common elementsifted out by comparison, is itself segmentedmany times over and splits intodifferentdeterminations.Somedeterminationsbelongtoallepochs,othersonlytoafew.[Some]determinationswillbesharedbythemostmodernepochandthemostancient.Noproductionwillbethinkablewithoutthem;howevereventhoughthemostdevelopedlanguageshavelawsandcharacteristicsincommonwiththeleastdeveloped,nevertheless,justthosethingswhichdeterminetheirdevelopment, i.e. the elements which are not general and common, must beseparatedoutfromthedeterminationsvalidforproductionassuch,sothat intheirunitywhicharisesalreadyfromtheidentityofthesubject,humanity,andof the object, nature their essential difference is not forgotten. The wholeprofundity of those modern economists who demonstrate the eternity andharmoniousness of the existing social relations lies in this forgetting. Forexample.Noproductionpossiblewithoutan instrumentofproduction,even ifthisinstrumentisonlythehand.Noproductionwithoutstored-up,pastlabour,evenifitisonlythefacilitygatheredtogetherandconcentratedinthehandofthe savage by repeated practice. Capital is, among other things, also aninstrument of production, also objectified, past labour. Therefore capital is ageneral,eternalrelationofnature;thatis,ifIleaveoutjustthespecificqualitywhich alone makes instrument of production and stored-up labour intocapital. The entire history of production relations thus appears to Carey, forexample,asamaliciousforgeryperpetratedbygovernments.Ifthereisnoproductioningeneral,thenthereisalsonogeneralproduction.

Production is always a particular branch of production e.g. agriculture,cattle-raising,manufacturesetc.oritisatotality.Butpoliticaleconomyisnottechnology.Therelationofthegeneralcharacteristicsofproductionatagivenstage of social development to the particular forms of production to be

Grundrisse

19

developed elsewhere (later). Lastly, production also is not only a particularproduction.Rather,itisalwaysacertainsocialbody,asocialsubject,whichisactive inagreaterorsparsertotalityofbranchesofproduction.Nordoestherelationshipbetweenscientificpresentationandtherealmovementbelonghereyet. Production in general. Particular branches of production. Totality ofproduction.It is the fashion toprefaceaworkofeconomicswithageneralpart and

precisely this part figures under the title production (see for example J. St.Mill)[7]treatingofthegeneralpreconditionsofallproduction.Thisgeneralpart consists or is alleged to consist of (1) the conditions without whichproduction is not possible. I.e. in fact, to indicate nothing more than theessentialmomentsofallproduction.But,aswewill see, this reduces itself infact to a few very simple characteristics, which are hammered out into flattautologies;(2)theconditionswhichpromoteproductiontoagreaterorlesserdegree, such as e.g. Adam Smiths progressive and stagnant state of society.While this is of value in his work as an insight, to elevate it to scientificsignificancewouldrequire investigations into theperiodizationofdegreesofproductivityinthedevelopmentofindividualpeoplesaninvestigationwhichliesoutsidetheproperboundariesofthetheme,but,insofarasitdoesbelongthere, must be brought in as part of the development of competition,accumulationetc.Intheusualformulation,theansweramountstothegeneralstatement that an industrial people reaches the peak of its production at themomentwhen itarrivesat itshistoricalpeakgenerally. In fact.The industrialpeakofapeoplewhenitsmainconcernisnotyetgain,butrathertogain.Thusthe Yankees over the English. Or, also, that e.g. certain races, locations,climates, natural conditions such as harbours, soil fertility etc. are moreadvantageoustoproductionthanothers.Thistooamountstothetautologythatwealth is more easily created where its elements are subjectively andobjectivelypresenttoagreaterdegree.Butnoneofallthisistheeconomistsrealconcerninthisgeneralpart.The

aim is, rather, to present production see e.g. Mill as distinct fromdistributionetc.,asencased ineternalnatural laws independentofhistory,atwhich opportunity bourgeois relations are then quietly smuggled in as theinviolablenatural lawsonwhichsocietyintheabstract isfounded.This isthe

KarlMarx

20

more or less conscious purpose of the whole proceeding. In distribution, bycontrast, humanity has allegedly permitted itself to be considerably morearbitrary. Quite apart from this crude tearing-apart of production anddistributionandoftheirrealrelationship, itmustbeapparentfromtheoutsetthat,nomatterhowdifferentlydistributionmayhavebeenarrangedindifferentstages of social development, it must be possible here also, just as withproduction, to single out common characteristics, and just as possible toconfoundortoextinguishallhistoricdifferencesundergeneralhuman laws.Forexample,theslave,theserfandthewagelabourerallreceiveaquantityoffood which makes it possible for them to exist as slaves, as serfs, as wagelabourers.Theconquerorwholivesfromtribute,ortheofficialwholivesfromtaxes,orthe landedproprietorandhisrent,orthemonkandhisalms,ortheLevite and his tithe, all receive a quota of social production, which isdetermined by other laws than that of the slaves, etc. The twomain pointswhichalleconomistsciteunderthisrubricare:(1)property;(2)itsprotectionbycourts,police,etc.Tothisaveryshortanswermaybegiven:to1.Allproduction isappropriationofnatureon thepartofan individual

withinandthroughaspecific formofsociety.Inthissense it isatautologytosay that property (appropriation) is a precondition of production. But it isaltogetherridiculoustoleapfromthattoaspecificformofproperty,e.g.privateproperty. (Which further and equally presupposes an antithetical form, non-property.) History rather shows common property (e.g. in India, among theSlavs,theearlyCelts,etc.)tobethemore[8]originalform,aformwhichlongcontinues to play a significant role in the shape of communal property. Thequestionwhetherwealthdevelopsbetterinthisoranotherformofpropertyisstillquitebesidethepointhere.Butthattherecanbenoproductionandhenceno society where some form of property does not exist is a tautology. Anappropriationwhichdoesnotmakesomethingintopropertyisacontradictioinsubjecto.to 2. Protection of acquisitions etc.When these trivialities are reduced to

theirrealcontent,theytellmorethantheirpreachersknow.Namelythateveryformofproductioncreatesitsownlegalrelations,formofgovernment,etc.Inbringingthingswhichareorganicallyrelatedintoanaccidentalrelation,intoamerelyreflectiveconnection, theydisplay theircrudityand lackofconceptual

Grundrisse

21

understanding.Allthebourgeoiseconomistsareawareofisthatproductioncanbecarriedonbetterunderthemodernpolicethane.g.ontheprincipleofmightmakesright.Theyforgetonlythatthisprincipleisalsoalegalrelation,andthattherightofthestrongerprevailsintheirconstitutionalrepublicsaswell,onlyinanotherform.Whenthesocialconditionscorrespondingtoaspecificstageofproduction

areonly justarising,orwhentheyarealreadydyingout, thereare,naturally,disturbances in production, although to different degrees and with differenteffects.Tosummarize:Therearecharacteristicswhichallstagesofproductionhave

incommon,andwhichareestablishedasgeneralonesbythemind;buttheso-calledgeneralpreconditions of all production are nothingmore than theseabstract moments with which no real historical stage of production can begrasped.

(2) THE GENERAL RELATION OF PRODUCTION TODISTRIBUTION,EXCHANGE,CONSUMPTION

Beforegoingfurtherintheanalysisofproduction,itisnecessarytofocusonthevariouscategorieswhichtheeconomistslineupnexttoit.Theobvious,tritenotion:inproductionthemembersofsocietyappropriate

(create,shape)theproductsofnatureinaccordwithhumanneeds;distributiondetermines the proportion in which the individual shares in the product;exchangedelivers theparticularproducts intowhich the individualdesires toconvert the portion which distribution has assigned to him; and finally, inconsumption, the products become objects of gratification, of individualappropriation. Production creates the objects which correspond to the givenneeds;distributiondividesthemupaccordingtosociallaws;exchangefurtherparcels out the already divided shares in accord with individual needs; andfinally, in consumption, the product steps outside this social movement andbecomesadirectobjectandservantofindividualneed,andsatisfiesitinbeingconsumed.Thusproductionappearsasthepointofdeparture,consumptionastheconclusion,distributionandexchangeasthemiddle,whichishoweveritselftwofold, since distribution is determined by society and exchange by

KarlMarx

22

individuals.Thepersonobjectifieshimself inproduction,thethingsubjectifiesitselfintheperson;[9]indistribution,societymediatesbetweenproductionandconsumption in the form of general, dominant determinants; in exchange thetwoaremediatedbythechancecharacteristicsoftheindividual.Distributiondeterminestherelationinwhichproductsfalltoindividuals(the

amount); exchange determines the production [10] in which the individualdemandstheportionallottedtohimbydistribution.Thus production, distribution, exchange and consumption form a regular

syllogism; production is the generality, distribution and exchange theparticularity, and consumption the singularity in which the whole is joinedtogether. This is admittedly a coherence, but a shallow one. Production isdetermined by general natural laws, distribution by social accident, and thelattermaythereforepromoteproductiontoagreaterorlesserextent;exchangestands between the two as formal social movement; and the concluding act,consumption,whichisconceivednotonlyasaterminalpointbutalsoasanend-in-itself,actuallybelongsoutsideeconomicsexceptinsofarasitreactsinturnuponthepointofdepartureandinitiatesthewholeprocessanew.The opponents of the political economists whether inside or outside its

realm who accuse them of barbarically tearing apart things which belongtogether,standeitheronthesamegroundasthey,orbeneaththem.Nothingismorecommonthanthereproachthatthepoliticaleconomistsviewproductiontoo much as an end in itself, that distribution is just as important. Thisaccusation is based precisely on the economic notion that the spheres ofdistribution and of production are independent, autonomous neighbours. Orthatthesemomentswerenotgraspedintheirunity.Asifthisrupturehadmadeitswaynot fromreality intothetextbooks,butrather fromthetextbooks intoreality,andasifthetaskwerethedialecticbalancingofconcepts,andnotthegraspingofrealrelations!

[ConsumptionandProduction]

(a1) Production is also immediately consumption. Twofold consumption,subjective and objective: the individual not only develops his abilities inproduction,butalsoexpendsthem,usesthemupintheactofproduction,just

Grundrisse

23

asnaturalprocreationisaconsumptionoflifeforces.Secondly:consumptionofthemeansofproduction,whichbecomewornout throughuse,andarepartly(e.g.incombustion)dissolvedintotheirelementsagain.Likewise,consumptionoftherawmaterial,whichlosesitsnaturalformandcompositionbybeingusedup. The act of production is therefore in all its moments also an act ofconsumption. But the economists admit this. Production as directly identicalwith consumption, and consumption asdirectly coincidentwithproduction, istermed by them productive consumption. This identity of production andconsumptionamountstoSpinozasthesis:determinatioestnegatio.[11]But this definition of productive consumption is advanced only for the

purpose of separating consumption as identical with production fromconsumptionproper,whichisconceivedratherasthedestructiveantithesistoproduction.Letusthereforeexamineconsumptionproper.Consumption is also immediately production, just as in nature the

consumptionoftheelementsandchemicalsubstancesistheproductionoftheplant. It is clear that in taking in food, for example, which is a form ofconsumption,thehumanbeingproduceshisownbody.Butthis isalsotrueofeverykindofconsumptionwhichinonewayoranotherproduceshumanbeingsin someparticular aspect.Consumptive production.But, says economics, thisproductionwhichisidenticalwithconsumptionissecondary,itisderivedfromthe destruction of the prior product. In the former, the producer objectifiedhimself, in the latter, the object he created personifies itself. Hence thisconsumptiveproduction even though it is an immediateunity of productionand consumption is essentially different from production proper. Theimmediate unity in which production coincides with consumption andconsumptionwithproductionleavestheirimmediatedualityintact.Production, then, is also immediately consumption, consumption is also

immediatelyproduction.Eachisimmediatelyitsopposite.Butatthesametimea mediating movement takes place between the two. Production mediatesconsumption;itcreatesthelattersmaterial;withoutit,consumptionwouldlackanobject.Butconsumptionalsomediatesproduction,inthatitalonecreatesfortheproductsthesubjectforwhomtheyareproducts.Theproductonlyobtainsitslastfinishinconsumption.Arailwayonwhichnotrainsrun,hencewhichisnotusedup,not consumed, is a railwayonly,[13] andnot in reality.

KarlMarx

24

Without production, no consumption; but also, without consumption, noproduction;sinceproductionwouldthenbepurposeless.Consumptionproducesproductioninadoubleway,(1)becauseaproductbecomesarealproductonlybybeingconsumed.Forexample,agarmentbecomesarealgarmentonlyintheactofbeingworn;ahousewherenoonelivesisinfactnotarealhouse;thusthe product, unlike a mere natural object, proves itself to be, becomes, aproduct only through consumption. Only by decomposing the product doesconsumptiongivetheproductthefinishingtouch;fortheproductisproductionnotas[14]objectifiedactivity,butratheronlyasobjectfortheactivesubject;(2)becauseconsumptioncreatestheneedfornewproduction,thatisitcreatestheideal,internallyimpellingcauseforproduction,whichisitspresupposition.Consumptioncreatesthemotiveforproduction;italsocreatestheobjectwhichisactiveinproductionasitsdeterminantaim.Ifitisclearthatproductionoffersconsumption itsexternalobject, it is thereforeequallyclear thatconsumptionideallypositstheobjectofproductionasaninternalimage,asaneed,asdriveandaspurpose.Itcreatestheobjectsofproductioninastillsubjectiveform.Noproductionwithoutaneed.Butconsumptionreproducestheneed.Production, for itspart,correspondingly (1) furnishes thematerialandthe

objectforconsumption.[15]Consumptionwithoutanobjectisnotconsumption;therefore, in this respect, production creates, produces consumption. (2) Butthe object is not the only thing which production creates for consumption.Productionalsogivesconsumptionitsspecificity,itscharacter,itsfinish.Justasconsumption gave the product its finish as product, so does production givefinish to consumption. Firstly, the object is not an object in general, but aspecificobjectwhichmustbeconsumedinaspecificmanner,tobemediatedinits turn by production itself. Hunger is hunger, but the hunger gratified bycookedmeateatenwithaknifeandforkisadifferenthungerfromthatwhichbolts down raw meat with the aid of hand, nail and tooth. Production thusproduces not only the object but also the manner of consumption, not onlyobjectively but also subjectively. Production thus creates the consumer. (3)Productionnotonlysuppliesamaterialfortheneed,butitalsosuppliesaneedfor the material. As soon as consumption emerges from its initial state ofnaturalcrudityandimmediacyand,ifitremainedatthatstage,thiswouldbebecauseproductionitselfhadbeenarrestedthereitbecomesitselfmediated

Grundrisse

25

as a drive by the object. The needwhich consumption feels for the object iscreatedby theperceptionof it.Theobjectof art likeeveryotherproduct createsapublicwhichissensitivetoartandenjoysbeauty.Productionthusnotonly creates anobject for the subject, but also a subject for the object. Thusproduction produces consumption (1) by creating the material for it; (2) bydetermining the manner of consumption; and (3) by creating the products,initiallypositedbyitasobjects, intheformofaneedfeltbytheconsumer.Itthusproduces theobjectofconsumption, themannerofconsumptionandthemotive of consumption. Consumption likewise produces the producersinclinationbybeckoningtohimasanaim-determiningneed.Theidentitiesbetweenconsumptionandproductionthusappearthreefold:(1) Immediate identity: Production is consumption, consumption is

production. Consumptive production. Productive consumption. The politicaleconomists call both productive consumption. But then make a furtherdistinction. The first figures as reproduction, the second as productiveconsumption. All investigations into the first concern productive orunproductivelabour;investigationsintothesecondconcernproductiveornon-productiveconsumption.(2)[Inthesense]thatoneappearsasameansfortheother,ismediatedby

the other: this is expressed as their mutual dependence; a movement whichrelatesthemtooneanother,makesthemappearindispensabletooneanother,butstillleavesthemexternaltoeachother.Productioncreatesthematerial,asexternal object, for consumption; consumption creates the need, as internalobject, as aim, for production. Without production no consumption; withoutconsumption no production. [This identity] figures in economics in manydifferentforms.(3) Not only is production immediately consumption and consumption

immediately production, not only is production ameans for consumption andconsumptiontheaimofproduction,i.e.eachsuppliestheotherwithitsobject(production supplying the external object of consumption, consumption theconceived object of production); but also, each of them, apart from beingimmediately theother,andapart frommediating theother, inaddition to thiscreates the other in completing itself, and creates itself as the other.Consumptionaccomplishestheactofproductiononlyincompletingtheproduct

KarlMarx

26

asproductbydissolving it, by consuming its independentlymaterial form,byraisingtheinclinationdevelopedinthefirstactofproduction,throughtheneedforrepetition,toitsfinishedform;itisthusnotonlytheconcludingactinwhichthe product becomes product, but also that in which the producer becomesproducer.Ontheotherside,productionproducesconsumptionbycreatingthespecific manner of consumption; and, further, by creating the stimulus ofconsumption,theabilitytoconsume,asaneed.Thislastidentity,asdeterminedunder (3), [is] frequently cited in economics in the relation of demand andsupply,ofobjectsandneeds,ofsociallycreatedandnaturalneeds.Thereupon, nothing simpler for a Hegelian than to posit production and

consumptionasidentical.Andthishasbeendonenotonlybysocialistbelletristsbutbyprosaiceconomiststhemselves,e.g.Say;[16]intheformthatwhenonelooks at an entire people, its production is its consumption. Or, indeed, athumanityintheabstract.Storch[17]demonstratedSayserror,namelythate.g.a people does not consume its entire product, but also creates means ofproduction,etc.,fixedcapital,etc.Toregardsocietyasonesinglesubjectis,inaddition, to lookat itwrongly;speculatively.Withasinglesubject,productionand consumption appear asmoments of a single act. The important thing toemphasizehere isonly that,whetherproductionandconsumptionareviewedas the activity of one or of many individuals, they appear in any case asmomentsofoneprocess,inwhichproductionistherealpointofdepartureandhencealsothepredominantmoment.Consumptionasurgency,asneed,isitselfan intrinsic moment of productive activity. But the latter is the point ofdepartureforrealizationandhencealsoitspredominantmoment; it istheactthroughwhichthewholeprocessagainrunsitscourse.Theindividualproducesanobjectand,byconsumingit,returnstohimself,butreturnsasaproductiveand self-reproducing individual. Consumption thus appears as a moment ofproduction.Insociety,however,theproducersrelationtotheproduct,oncethelatteris

finished, is an external one, and its return to the subject depends on hisrelations toother individuals.Hedoesnotcome intopossessionof itdirectly.Nor is its immediate appropriation his purposewhen he produces in society.Distribution steps between the producers and the products, hence betweenproductionandconsumption,todetermineinaccordancewithsociallawswhat

Grundrisse

27

theproducerssharewillbeintheworldofproducts.Now, does distribution stand at the side of and outside production as an

autonomoussphere?

Distributionandproduction

(b1) When one examines the usual works of economics, it is immediatelystriking that everything in them is posited doubly. For example, ground rent,wages, interest and profit figure under distribution, while land, labour andcapitalfigureunderproductionasagentsofproduction.Inthecaseofcapital,now, it is evident from the outset that it is posited doubly, (1) as agent ofproduction, (2) as source of income, as a determinant of specific forms ofdistribution.Interestandprofitthusalsofigureassuchinproduction,insofarastheyareformsinwhichcapitalincreases,grows,hencemomentsofitsownproduction. Interest and profit as forms of distribution presuppose capital asagent of production. They are modes of distribution whose presupposition iscapital as agent of production. They are, likewise, modes of reproduction ofcapital.The category of wages, similarly, is the same as that which is examined

underadifferentheadingaswagelabour:thecharacteristicwhichlabourherepossessesasanagentofproductionappearsasacharacteristicofdistribution.Iflabourwerenotspecifiedaswagelabour,thenthemannerinwhichitsharesin the products would not appear as wages; as, for example, under slavery.Finally,totakeatoncethemostdevelopedformofdistribution,groundrent,bymeansofwhichlandedpropertysharesintheproduct,presupposeslarge-scalelandedproperty (actually, large-scaleagriculture) asagentofproduction, andnot merely land as such, just as wages do not merely presuppose labour assuch.Therelationsandmodesofdistributionthusappearmerelyastheobverseoftheagentsofproduction.Anindividualwhoparticipatesinproductionintheformofwagelaboursharesintheproducts,intheresultsofproduction,intheform of wages. The structure [Gliederung] of distribution is completelydetermined by the structure of production. Distribution is itself a product ofproduction,notonlyinitsobject,inthatonlytheresultsofproductioncanbedistributed, but also in its form, in that the specific kind of participation in

KarlMarx

28

production determines the specific forms of distribution, i.e. the pattern ofparticipation in distribution. It is altogether an illusion to posit land inproduction,groundrentindistribution,etc.Thus,economistssuchasRicardo,whoarethemost frequentlyaccusedof

focusingonproductionalone,havedefineddistributionastheexclusiveobjectofeconomics,becausetheyinstinctivelyconceivedtheformsofdistributionasthe most specific expression into which the agents of production of a givensocietyarecast.Tothesingleindividual,ofcourse,distributionappearsasasociallawwhich

determines his position within the system of production within which heproduces,andwhichthereforeprecedesproduction.Theindividualcomesintotheworldpossessingneithercapitalnorland.Socialdistributionassignshimatbirthtowagelabour.Butthissituationofbeingassignedisitselfaconsequenceof the existence of capital and landed property as independent agents ofproduction.Asregardswholesocieties,distributionseemstoprecedeproductionandto

determineitinyetanotherrespect,almostasifitwereapre-economicfact.Aconquering people divides the land among the conquerors, thus imposes acertain distribution and form of property in land, and thus determinesproduction. Or it enslaves the conquered and so makes slave labour thefoundationofproduction.Orapeoplerisesinrevolutionandsmashesthegreatlanded estates into small parcels, and hence, by this new distribution, givesproduction a new character. Or a system of laws assigns property in land tocertain families in perpetuity, or distributes labour [as] a hereditary privilegeand thusconfines itwithincertaincastes. Inall thesecases, and theyareallhistorical, it seems that distribution is not structured and determined byproduction,butrathertheopposite,productionbydistribution.In the shallowest conception, distribution appears as the distribution of

products, and hence as further removed from and quasi-independent ofproduction.Butbeforedistributioncanbethedistributionofproducts,itis:(1)the distribution of the instruments of production, and (2), which is a furtherspecificationofthesamerelation,thedistributionofthemembersofthesocietyamongthedifferentkindsofproduction.(Subsumptionoftheindividualsunderspecificrelationsofproduction.)Thedistributionofproductsisevidentlyonlya

Grundrisse

29

resultofthisdistribution,whichiscomprisedwithintheprocessofproductionitselfanddeterminesthestructureofproduction.Toexamineproductionwhiledisregarding this internal distribution within it is obviously an emptyabstraction;whileconversely,thedistributionofproductsfollowsbyitselffromthisdistributionwhichformsanoriginalmomentofproduction.Ricardo,whoseconcernwas tograsp the specific social structure ofmodernproduction, andwhoistheeconomistofproductionparexcellence,declaresforpreciselythatreason that not production but distribution is the proper study of moderneconomics. [18] This again shows the ineptitude of those economists whoportrayproductionasaneternal truthwhilebanishinghistory to therealmofdistribution.The question of the relation between this production-determining

distribution,andproduction,belongsevidentlywithinproduction itself. If it issaid that, since production must begin with a certain distribution of theinstruments of production, it follows that distribution at least in this senseprecedes and forms thepresupposition of production, then the replymust bethat production does indeed have its determinants and preconditions whichform its moments. At the very beginning these may appear as spontaneous,natural. But by the process of production itself they are transformed fromnatural intohistoricdeterminants,and if theyappeartooneepochasnaturalpresuppositionsofproduction,theywereitshistoricproductforanother.Withinproduction itself they are constantly being changed. The application ofmachinery, forexample,changedthedistributionof instrumentsofproductionaswellasofproducts.Modernlarge-scalelandedpropertyisitselftheproductofmoderncommerceandofmodernindustry,aswellasoftheapplicationofthelattertoagriculture.Thequestionsraisedaboveallreducethemselvesinthelastinstancetothe

role playedby general-historical relations in production, and their relation tothemovement of history generally. The question evidently belongswithin thetreatmentandinvestigationofproductionitself.Still, in the trivial form inwhich they are raised above, they can be dealt

with equally briefly. In all cases of conquest, three things are possible. Theconqueringpeoplesubjugatestheconqueredunderitsownmodeofproduction(e.g.theEnglishinIrelandinthiscentury,andpartlyinIndia);oritleavesthe

KarlMarx

30

oldmodeintactandcontentsitselfwithatribute(e.g.TurksandRomans);orareciprocal interaction takesplacewhereby somethingnew,a synthesis, arises(theGermanicconquests,inpart).Inallcases,themodeofproduction,whetherthatoftheconqueringpeople,thatoftheconquered,orthatemergingfromthefusionofboth, isdecisive for thenewdistributionwhicharises.Althoughthelatter appears as a presupposition of the newperiod of production, it is thusitselfinturnaproductofproduction,notonlyofhistoricalproductiongenerally,butofthespecifichistoricmodeofproduction.The Mongols, with their devastations in Russia, e.g., were acting in

accordance with their production, cattle-raising, for which vast uninhabitedspacesareachiefprecondition.TheGermanicbarbarians,wholivedinisolationon the land and for whom agriculture with bondsmen was the traditionalproduction,couldimposetheseconditionsontheRomanprovincesallthemoreeasilyastheconcentrationoflandedpropertywhichhadtakenplacetherehadalreadyentirelyoverthrowntheearlieragriculturalrelations.It is a received opinion that in certain periods people lived from pillage

alone.But,forpillagetobepossible,theremustbesomethingtobepillaged,henceproduction.And themodeofpillage is itself in turndeterminedby themodeofproduction.Astock-jobbingnation,forexample,cannotbepillagedinthesamemannerasanationofcow-herds.Tostealaslaveistostealtheinstrumentofproductiondirectly.Butthenthe

productionof the country forwhich the slave is stolenmust be structured toallow of slave labour, or (as in the southern part of America etc.) amode ofproductioncorrespondingtotheslavemustbecreated.Laws may perpetuate an instrument of production, e.g. land, in certain

families. These laws achieve economic significance only when large-scalelandedpropertyisinharmonywiththesocietysproduction,ase.g.inEngland.In France, small-scale agriculture survived despite the great landed estates,hencethelatterweresmashedbytherevolution.Butcanlawsperpetuatethesmall-scale allotment? Despite these laws, ownership is again becomingconcentrated.Theinfluenceof lawsinstabilizingrelationsofdistribution,andhence their effect on production, requires to be determined in each specificinstance.

Grundrisse

31

(c1)Exchange,Finally,andCirculation

Exchangeandproduction

Circulation itself [is] merely a specific moment of exchange, or [it is] alsoexchangeregardedinitstotality.Inso farasexchange ismerely amomentmediatingbetweenproduction

withitsproduction-determineddistributionononesideandconsumptionontheother,but in so faras the latter itself appearsasamomentofproduction, tothatextentisexchangeobviouslyalsoincludedasamomentwithinthelatter.It is clear, firstly, that the exchange of activities and abilitieswhich takes

place within production itself belongs directly to production and essentiallyconstitutesit.Thesameholds,secondly,fortheexchangeofproducts,insofaras that exchange is themeans of finishing the product andmaking it fit fordirect consumption. To that extent, exchange is an act comprised withinproductionitself.Thirdly,theso-calledexchangebetweendealersanddealersisby its very organization entirely determined by production, as well as beingitselfaproducingactivity.Exchangeappearsasindependentofandindifferenttoproductiononly in the finalphasewhere theproduct isexchangeddirectlyfor consumption. But (1) there is no exchange without division of labour,whether the latter is spontaneous, natural, or already a product of historicdevelopment; (2) private exchange presupposes private production; (3) theintensityofexchange,aswellas itsextensionanditsmanner,aredeterminedby the development and structure of production. For example. Exchangebetweentownandcountry;exchangeinthecountry,inthetownetc.Exchangein all itsmoments thus appears as eitherdirectly comprised inproductionordeterminedbyit.Theconclusionwereachisnotthatproduction,distribution,exchangeand

consumption are identical, but that they all form the members of a totality,distinctionswithinaunity.Productionpredominatesnotonlyoveritself, intheantitheticaldefinitionofproduction,butover theothermomentsaswell.Theprocess always returns to production to begin anew. That exchange andconsumption cannot be predominant is self-evident. Likewise, distribution asdistributionofproducts;whileasdistributionof theagentsofproduction it is

KarlMarx

32

itselfamomentofproduction.Adefiniteproductionthusdeterminesadefiniteconsumption,distributionandexchangeaswellasdefiniterelationsbetweenthese different moments. Admittedly, however, in its one-sided form,production is itself determined by the other moments. For example if themarket,i.e.thesphereofexchange,expands,thenproductiongrowsinquantityand the divisions between its different branches becomedeeper. A change indistribution changes production, e.g. concentration of capital, differentdistributionofthepopulationbetweentownandcountry,etc.Finally,theneedsofconsumptiondetermineproduction.Mutual interactiontakesplacebetweenthedifferentmoments.Thisthecasewitheveryorganicwhole.

(3)THEMETHODOFPOLITICALECONOMY

When we consider a given country politico-economically, we begin with itspopulation, its distribution among classes, town, country, the coast, thedifferent branches of production, export and import, annual production andconsumption,commoditypricesetc.Itseemstobecorrecttobeginwiththerealandtheconcrete,withthereal

precondition,thustobegin,ineconomics,withe.g.thepopulation,whichisthefoundationandthesubjectof theentiresocialactofproduction.However,oncloserexaminationthisprovesfalse.ThepopulationisanabstractionifIleaveout,forexample,theclassesofwhichitiscomposed.TheseclassesinturnareanemptyphraseifIamnotfamiliarwiththeelementsonwhichtheyrest.E.g.wagelabour,capital,etc.Theselatterinturnpresupposeexchange,divisionoflabour,prices,etc.Forexample,capitalisnothingwithoutwagelabour,withoutvalue,money,priceetc.Thus,ifIweretobeginwiththepopulation,thiswouldbeachaoticconception[Vorstellung]ofthewhole,andIwouldthen,bymeansoffurtherdetermination,moveanalyticallytowardsevermoresimpleconcepts[Begriff],fromtheimaginedconcretetowardseverthinnerabstractionsuntilIhadarrivedatthesimplestdeterminations.FromtherethejourneywouldhavetoberetraceduntilIhadfinallyarrivedatthepopulationagain,butthistimenot as the chaotic conception of a whole, but as a rich totality of manydeterminations and relations. The former is the path historically followed byeconomicsatthetimeofitsorigins.Theeconomistsoftheseventeenthcentury,

Grundrisse

33

e.g.,alwaysbeginwiththelivingwhole,withpopulation,nation,state,severalstates,etc.;but theyalwaysconcludebydiscovering throughanalysisasmallnumber of determinant, abstract, general relations suchasdivision of labour,money,value,etc.Assoonastheseindividualmomentshadbeenmoreorlessfirmly established and abstracted, there began the economic systems, whichascended from the simple relations, such as labour, division of labour, need,exchange value, to the level of the state, exchange between nations and theworld market. The latter is obviously the scientifically correct method. Theconcrete is concrete because it is the concentration ofmany determinations,henceunityofthediverse.Itappearsintheprocessofthinking,therefore,asaprocessofconcentration,asaresult,notasapointofdeparture,eventhoughitis the point of departure in reality and hence also the point of departure forobservation [Anschauung] and conception. Along the first path the fullconception was evaporated to yield an abstract determination; along thesecond, the abstract determinations lead towards a reproduction of theconcretebywayofthought.InthiswayHegelfellintotheillusionofconceivingtherealastheproductofthoughtconcentratingitself,probingitsowndepths,andunfoldingitselfoutofitself,byitself,whereasthemethodofrisingfromtheabstract to the concrete is only the way in which thought appropriates theconcrete,reproducesitastheconcreteinthemind.Butthisisbynomeanstheprocess by which the concrete itself comes into being. For example, thesimplesteconomiccategory, saye.g. exchangevalue,presupposespopulation,moreoverapopulationproducinginspecificrelations;aswellasacertainkindoffamily,orcommune,orstate,etc.Itcanneverexistotherthanasanabstract,one-sidedrelationwithinanalreadygiven,concrete,livingwhole.Asacategory,bycontrast,exchangevalue leadsanantediluvianexistence.Therefore, tothekind of consciousness and this is characteristic of the philosophicalconsciousnessforwhichconceptualthinkingistherealhumanbeing,andforwhichtheconceptualworldassuchisthustheonlyreality,themovementofthecategories appears as the real act of production which only, unfortunately,receivesajoltfromtheoutsidewhoseproductistheworld;andbutthisisagainatautologythisiscorrectinsofarastheconcretetotalityisatotalityofthoughts,concreteinthought,infactaproductofthinkingandcomprehending;butnot inanywayaproductoftheconceptwhichthinksandgenerates itself

KarlMarx

34

outsideoraboveobservationandconception;aproduct,rather,oftheworking-upofobservationandconceptionintoconcepts.Thetotalityasitappearsinthehead, as a totality of thoughts, is a product of a thinking head, whichappropriatestheworldintheonlywayitcan,awaydifferentfromtheartistic,religious, practical and mental appropriation of this world. The real subjectretains its autonomous existence outside the head just as before; namely aslongastheheadsconductismerelyspeculative,merelytheoretical.Hence,inthetheoreticalmethod,too,thesubject,society,mustalwaysbekeptinmindasthepresupposition.Butdonot thesesimplercategoriesalsohavean independenthistoricalor

naturalexistencepre-datingthemoreconcreteones?Thatdepends.Hegel,forexample, correctly begins thePhilosophy ofRightwith possession, this beingthe subjects simplest juridical relation. But there is no possession precedingthe familyormaster-servant relations,whichare farmoreconcrete relations.However,itwouldbecorrecttosaythattherearefamiliesorclangroupswhichstill merely possess, but have no property. The simple category thereforeappearsinrelationtopropertyasarelationofsimplefamiliesorclangroups.Inthe higher society it appears as the simpler relation of a developedorganization.But theconcretesubstratumofwhichpossession isarelation isalways presupposed. One can imagine an individual savage as possessingsomething.Butinthatcasepossessionisnotajuridicalrelation.Itisincorrectthatpossessiondevelopshistoricallyintothefamily.Possession,rather,alwayspresupposes this more concrete juridical category. There would still alwaysremain this much, however, namely that the simple categories are theexpressions of relations within which the less developed concrete may havealreadyrealizeditselfbeforehavingpositedthemoremany-sidedconnectionorrelationwhichismentallyexpressedinthemoreconcretecategory;whilethemore developed concrete preserves the same category as a subordinaterelation. Money may exist, and did exist historically, before capital existed,before banks existed, beforewage labour existed, etc. Thus in this respect itmaybesaidthatthesimplercategorycanexpressthedominantrelationsofalessdevelopedwhole,orelsethosesubordinaterelationsofamoredevelopedwholewhichalreadyhadahistoricexistencebeforethiswholedevelopedinthedirection expressed by a more concrete category. To that extent the path of

Grundrisse

35

abstractthought,risingfromthesimpletothecombined,wouldcorrespondtotherealhistoricalprocess.It may be said on the other hand that there are very developed but

nevertheless historically less mature forms of society, in which the highestforms of economy, e.g. cooperation, a developed division of labour, etc., arefound, even though there is no kind of money, e.g. Peru. Among the Slavcommunitiesalso,moneyandtheexchangewhichdeterminesitplaylittleornorolewithintheindividualcommunities,butonlyontheirboundaries, intrafficwith others; it is simplywrong to place exchange at the centre of communalsocietyastheoriginal,constituentelement.Itoriginallyappears,rather,intheconnectionof thedifferentcommunitieswithoneanother,not in therelationsbetweenthedifferentmembersofasinglecommunity.Further,althoughmoneyeverywhere plays a role from very early on, it is nevertheless a predominantelement,inantiquity,onlywithintheconfinesofcertainone-sidedlydevelopednations, tradingnations.And even in themost advancedparts of the ancientworld,amongtheGreeksandRomans,thefulldevelopmentofmoney,whichispresupposed inmodern bourgeois society, appears only in the period of theirdissolution.Thisverysimplecategory,then,makesahistoricappearanceinitsfullintensityonlyinthemostdevelopedconditionsofsociety.Bynomeansdoesit wade its way through all economic relations. For example, in the RomanEmpire,atitshighestpointofdevelopment,thefoundationremainedtaxesandpaymentsinkind.Themoneysystemactuallycompletelydevelopedthereonlyin the army. And it never took over the whole of labour. Thus, although thesimplercategorymayhaveexistedhistoricallybeforethemoreconcrete,itcanachieve its full (intensiveandextensive)developmentprecisely inacombinedformofsociety,whilethemoreconcretecategorywasmorefullydevelopedinalessdevelopedformofsociety.Labour seems a quite simple category. The conception of labour in this

generalformaslabourassuchisalsoimmeasurablyold.Nevertheless,whenitiseconomicallyconceivedinthissimplicity,labourisasmodernacategoryasaretherelationswhichcreatethissimpleabstraction.TheMonetarySystem[19]forexample,stilllocateswealthaltogetherobjectively,asanexternalthing,in money. Compared with this standpoint, the commercial, or manufacture,system took agreat step forwardby locating the source ofwealth not in the

KarlMarx

36

objectbutinasubjectiveactivityincommercialandmanufacturingactivityeventhoughitstillalwaysconceivesthisactivitywithinnarrowboundaries,asmoney-making. In contrast to this system, that of the Physiocrats posits acertainkindof labour agricultureas thecreatorofwealth,and theobjectitselfnolongerappearsinamonetarydisguise,butastheproductingeneral,as the general result of labour. This product, as befits the narrowness of theactivity, still always remains a naturally determined product the product ofagriculture,theproductoftheearthparexcellence.ItwasanimmensestepforwardforAdamSmithtothrowouteverylimiting

specification of wealth-creating activity not only manufacturing, orcommercial or agricultural labour, but one as well as the others, labour ingeneral.Withtheabstractuniversalityofwealth-creatingactivitywenowhavetheuniversalityof theobjectdefinedaswealth, theproductas suchoragainlabouras such,but labouraspast, objectified labour.Howdifficult andgreatwasthistransitionmaybeseenfromhowAdamSmithhimselffromtimetotimestillfallsbackintothePhysiocraticsystem.Now,itmightseemthatallthathadbeenachievedtherebywastodiscovertheabstractexpressionforthesimplestandmostancientrelationinwhichhumanbeingsinwhateverformofsocietyplay the role of producers. This is correct in one respect. Not in another.Indifferencetowardsanyspecifickindoflabourpresupposesaverydevelopedtotality of real kinds of labour, of which no single one is any longerpredominant.Asarule,themostgeneralabstractionsariseonlyinthemidstoftherichestpossibleconcretedevelopment,whereonethingappearsascommontomany,toall.Thenitceasestobethinkableinaparticularformalone.Ontheotherside,thisabstractionoflabourassuchisnotmerelythementalproductofaconcretetotalityoflabours.Indifferencetowardsspecificlabourscorrespondstoaformofsocietyinwhichindividualscanwitheasetransferfromonelabourtoanother,andwherethespecifickindisamatterofchanceforthem,henceofindifference. Not only the category, labour, but labour in reality has herebecome the means of creating wealth in general, and has ceased to beorganicallylinkedwithparticularindividualsinanyspecificform.Suchastateof affairs is at its most developed in the most modern form of existence ofbourgeoissocietyintheUnitedStates.Here,then,forthefirsttime,thepointof departure of modern economics, namely the abstraction of the category

Grundrisse

37

labour,labourassuch,labourpureandsimple,becomestrueinpractice.Thesimplest abstraction, then,whichmoderneconomicsplacesat theheadof itsdiscussions,andwhichexpressesanimmeasurablyancientrelationvalidinallformsofsociety,neverthelessachievespracticaltruthasanabstractiononlyasa category of the most modern society. One could say that this indifferencetowards particular kinds of labour, which is a historic product in the UnitedStates,appearse.g.amongtheRussiansasaspontaneousinclination.Butthereisadevilofadifferencebetweenbarbarianswhoarefitbynaturetobeusedforanything,andcivilizedpeoplewhoapplythemselvestoeverything.Andthenin practice the Russian indifference to the specific character of labourcorresponds to being embedded by tradition within a very specific kind oflabour,fromwhichonlyexternalinfluencescanjarthemloose.This example of labour shows strikingly how even the most abstract

categories,despitetheirvaliditypreciselybecauseoftheirabstractnessforall epochs, are nevertheless, in the specific character of this abstraction,themselves likewise a product of historic relations, and possess their fullvalidityonlyforandwithintheserelations.Bourgeois society is the most developed and the most complex historic

organization of production. The categories which express its relations, thecomprehensionof itsstructure, therebyalsoallows insights into thestructureand the relations of production of all the vanished social formations out ofwhose ruins and elements it built itself up, whose partly still unconqueredremnants are carried along within it, whose mere nuances have developedexplicit significance within it, etc. Human anatomy contains a key to theanatomy of the ape. The intimations of higher development among thesubordinateanimalspecies,however,canbeunderstoodonlyafter thehigherdevelopmentisalreadyknown.Thebourgeoiseconomythussuppliesthekeytotheancient,etc.Butnotatallinthemannerofthoseeconomistswhosmudgeoverallhistoricaldifferencesandseebourgeoisrelationsinallformsofsociety.Onecanunderstandtribute, tithe,etc., ifone isacquaintedwithgroundrent.Butonemustnotidentifythem.Further,sincebourgeoissocietyisitselfonlyacontradictory form of development, relations derived from earlier forms willoftenbefoundwithinitonlyinanentirelystuntedform,oreventravestied.Forexample,communalproperty.Althoughitistrue,therefore,thatthecategories

KarlMarx

38

ofbourgeoiseconomicspossessatruthforallotherformsofsociety,thisistobe taken onlywith a grain of salt. They can contain them in a developed, orstunted,orcaricaturedformetc.,butalwayswithanessentialdifference.Theso-called historical presentation of development is founded, as a rule, on thefactthatthelatestformregardsthepreviousonesasstepsleadinguptoitself,and, since it is only rarely and only under quite specific conditions able tocriticizeitselfleavingaside,ofcourse,thehistoricalperiodswhichappeartothemselvesas timesofdecadence italwaysconceives themone-sidedly.TheChristian religion was able to be of assistance in reaching an objectiveunderstandingofearliermythologiesonlywhenitsownself-criticismhadbeenaccomplished to a certain degree, so to speak, . [20] Likewise,bourgeois economics arrived at an understanding of feudal, ancient, orientaleconomicsonlyaftertheself-criticismofbourgeoissocietyhadbegun.Insofarasthebourgeoiseconomydidnotmythologicallyidentifyitselfaltogetherwiththe past, its critique of the previous economies, notably of feudalism, withwhich it was still engaged in direct struggle, resembled the critique whichChristianity levelled against paganism, or also that of Protestantism againstCatholicism.In the succession of the economic categories, as in any other historical,

social science, it must not be forgotten that their subject here, modernbourgeoissocietyisalwayswhatisgiven,intheheadaswellasinreality,andthatthesecategoriesthereforeexpresstheformsofbeing,thecharacteristicsofexistence,andoftenonlyindividualsidesofthisspecificsociety,thissubject,andthatthereforethissocietybynomeansbeginsonlyatthepointwhereonecanspeakofitassuch;thisholdsforscienceaswell.This is tobekept inmind because it will shortly be decisive for the order and sequence of thecategories.Forexample,nothingseemsmorenaturalthantobeginwithgroundrent,withlandedproperty,sincethisisboundupwiththeearth,thesourceofallproductionandofallbeing,andwiththefirstformofproductionofallmoreorlesssettledsocietiesagriculture.Butnothingwouldbemoreerroneous.Inallformsofsocietythereisonespecifickindofproductionwhichpredominatesovertherest,whoserelationsthusassignrankandinfluencetotheothers.Itisa general illumination which bathes all the other colours and modifies theirparticularity. It is a particular ether which determines the specific gravity of

Grundrisse

39

every being which has materialized within it. For example, with pastoralpeoples (mere hunting and fishing peoples lie outside the point where realdevelopmentbegins).Certainformsoftillageoccuramongthem,sporadicones.Landedproperty isdeterminedby this. It isheld incommon,andretains thisformtoagreaterorlesserdegreeaccordingtothegreaterorlesserdegreeofattachment displayed by these peoples to their tradition, e.g. the communalpropertyof theSlavs.Amongpeopleswithasettledagriculture thissettlingalreadyagreatstepwherethispredominates,asinantiquityandinthefeudalorder, even industry, togetherwith its organizationand the formsofpropertycorrespondingto it,hasamoreor less landed-proprietarycharacter; iseithercompletelydependentonit,asamongtheearlierRomans,or,asintheMiddleAges,imitates,withinthecityanditsrelations,theorganizationoftheland.IntheMiddleAges,capitalitselfapartfrompuremoney-capitalintheformofthe traditional artisans tools etc., has this landed-proprietary character. Inbourgeoissocietyitistheopposite.Agriculturemoreandmorebecomesmerelyabranchofindustry,andisentirelydominatedbycapital.Groundrentlikewise.Inallformswherelandedpropertyrules,thenaturalrelationstillpredominant.In thosewhere capital rules, the social, historically created element. Groundrent cannot be understood without capital. But capital can certainly beunderstoodwithoutgroundrent.Capitalistheall-dominatingeconomicpowerof bourgeois society. It must form the starting-point as well as the finishing-point, and must be dealt with before landed property. After both have beenexaminedinparticular,theirinterrelationmustbeexamined.Itwould therefore be infeasible andwrong to let the economic categories

followoneanotherinthesamesequenceasthatinwhichtheywerehistoricallydecisive.Theirsequenceisdetermined,rather,bytheirrelationtooneanotherin modern bourgeois society, which is precisely the opposite of that whichseemstobetheirnaturalorderorwhichcorrespondstohistoricaldevelopment.Thepointisnotthehistoricpositionoftheeconomicrelationsinthesuccessionof different forms of society. Even less is it their sequence in the idea(Proudhon) [21] (a muddy notion of historic movement). Rather, their orderwithinmodernbourgeoissociety.Thepurity(abstractspecificity)inwhichthetradingpeoplesPhoenicians,

Carthaginians appear in the old world is determined precisely by the

KarlMarx

40

predominance of the agricultural peoples. Capital, as trading-capital or asmoney-capital,appearsinthisabstractionpreciselywherecapitalisnotyetthepredominant element of societies. Lombards, Jews take up the same positiontowardstheagriculturalsocietiesoftheMiddleAges.Asafurtherexampleofthedivergentpositionswhichthesamecategorycan

occupy indifferent social stages:oneof the latest formsofbourgeois society,joint-stockcompanies. These also appear, however, at its beginning, in thegreat,privilegedmonopolytradingcompanies.Theconceptofnationalwealthcreepsintotheworkoftheeconomistsofthe

seventeenth century continuingpartlywith those of the eighteenth in theformof thenotionthatwealth iscreatedonlytoenrichthestate,andthat itspower is proportionate to this wealth. This was the still unconsciouslyhypocritical form in which wealth and the production of wealth proclaimedthemselves as the purpose of modern states, and regarded these stateshenceforthonlyasmeansfortheproductionofwealth.Theorderobviouslyhastobe(1)thegeneral,abstractdeterminantswhich

obtaininmoreorlessallformsofsociety,butintheabove-explainedsense.(2)Thecategorieswhichmakeuptheinnerstructureofbourgeoissocietyandonwhichthefundamentalclassesrest.Capital,wagelabour,landedproperty.Theirinterrelation. Town and country. The three great social classes. Exchangebetween them. Circulation. Credit system (private). (3) Concentration ofbourgeois society in the form of the state. Viewed in relation to itself. Theunproductive classes. Taxes. State debt. Public credit. The population. Thecolonies.Emigration.(4)Theinternationalrelationofproduction.Internationaldivisionoflabour.Internationalexchange.Exportandimport.Rateofexchange.(5)Theworldmarketandcrises.[22]

(4) PRODUCTION. MEANS OF PRODUCTION ANDRELATIONS OF PRODUCTION. RELATIONS OFPRODUCTION AND RELATIONS OF CIRCULATION.FORMS OF THE STATE AND FORMS OFCONSCIOUSNESS IN RELATION TO RELATIONS OFPRODUCTIONANDCIRCULATION.LEGALRELATIONS.FAMILYRELATIONS.

Grundrisse

41

Notabeneinregardtopointstobementionedhereandnottobeforgotten:(1)War developed earlier than peace; theway inwhich certain economic

relationssuchaswagelabour,machineryetc.developearlier,owingtowarandin the armies etc., than in the interior of bourgeois society. The relation ofproductiveforceandrelationsofexchangealsoespeciallyvividinthearmy.(2)Relation of previous ideal historiography to the real.Namely of

theso-calledculturalhistories,whichareonlyhistoriesof religionsandofstates.(Onthatoccasionsomethingcanalsobesaidaboutthevariouskindsofprevious historiography. The so-called objective. Subjective (moral amongothers).Thephilosophical.)(3)Secondaryandtertiarymatters;ingeneral,derivative,inherited,not

originalrelationsofproduction.Influencehereofinternationalrelations.(4)Accusationsaboutthematerialismofthisconception.Relationto

naturalisticmaterialism.(5)Dialecticoftheconceptsproductiveforce(meansofproduction)

and relation of production, a dialectic whose boundaries are to bedetermined,andwhichdoesnotsuspendtherealdifference.(6)The uneven development ofmaterial production relative to e.g.

artisticdevelopment.Ingeneral,theconceptofprogressnottobeconceivedintheusualabstractness.Modernartetc.Thisdisproportionnotasimportantorsodifficulttograspaswithinpractical-socialrelationsthemselves.E.g.therelationofeducation.RelationoftheUnitedStates toEurope.But thereallydifficultpointtodiscusshereishowrelationsofproductiondevelopunevenlyaslegalrelations.Thuse.g. therelationofRomanprivate law(this less thecasewithcriminalandpubliclaw)tomodernproduction.(7) This conception appears as necessary development. But

legitimationofchance.How.(Offreedomalso,amongotherthings.)(Influenceofmeans of communication.World history has not always existed; history asworldhistoryaresult.)(8)Thepointofdepartureobviouslyfromthenaturalcharacteristic;

subjectivelyandobjectively.Tribes,racesetc.

(1) In the case of the arts, it is well known that certain periods of theirfloweringareoutofallproportiontothegeneraldevelopmentofsociety,hence

KarlMarx

42

also to the material foundation, the skeletal structure as it were, of itsorganization. For example, the Greeks compared to the moderns or alsoShakespeare.Itisevenrecognizedthatcertainformsofart,e.g.theepic,cannolongerbeproducedintheirworldepoch-making,classicalstatureassoonasthe production of art, as such, begins; that is, that certain significant formswithintherealmoftheartsarepossibleonlyatanundevelopedstageofartisticdevelopment.Ifthisisthecasewiththerelationbetweendifferentkindsofartwithintherealmofthearts,itisalreadylesspuzzlingthatitisthecaseintherelationoftheentirerealmtothegeneraldevelopmentofsociety.Thedifficultyconsistsonlyinthegeneralformulationofthesecontradictions.Assoonastheyhavebeenspecified,theyarealreadyclarified.Let us take e.g. the relation of Greek art and then of Shakespeare to the

presenttime.It iswellknownthatGreekmythologyisnotonlythearsenalofGreekartbutalsoitsfoundation.Istheviewofnatureandofsocialrelationsonwhich the Greek imagination and hence Greek [mythology] is based possiblewith self-acting mule spindles and railways and locomotives and electricaltelegraphs?What chancehasVulcanagainstRoberts andCo., Jupiter againstthe lightning-rod and Hermes against the Crdit Mobilier? All mythologyovercomesanddominates and shapes the forces of nature in the imaginationandby the imagination; it therefore vanisheswith theadventof realmasteryoverthem.WhatbecomesofFamaalongsidePrintingHouseSquare?GreekartpresupposesGreekmythology,i.e.natureandthesocialformsalreadyreworkedinanunconsciouslyartisticwaybythepopularimagination.Thisisitsmaterial.Not any mythology whatever, i.e. not an arbitrarily chosen unconsciouslyartistic reworking of nature (here meaning everything objective, henceincludingsociety).Egyptianmythologycouldneverhavebeenthefoundationorthe womb of Greek art. But, in any case, amythology. Hence, in no way asocialdevelopmentwhichexcludesallmythological,allmythologizingrelationstonature;whichthereforedemandsoftheartistanimaginationnotdependentonmythology.Fromanotherside: isAchillespossiblewithpowderandlead?OrtheIliad

withtheprintingpress,nottomentiontheprintingmachine?Donotthesongandthesagaandthemusenecessarilycometoanendwiththeprintersbar,hencedonotthenecessaryconditionsofepicpoetryvanish?

Grundrisse

43

ButthedifficultyliesnotinunderstandingthattheGreekartsandepicareboundupwithcertain formsof socialdevelopment.Thedifficulty is that theystill afford us artistic pleasure and that in a certain respect they count as anormandasanunattainablemodel.Amancannotbecomeachildagain,orhebecomeschildish.Butdoeshenot

find joy in thechildsnavit, andmusthehimselfnot strive to reproduce itstruthatahigherstage?Doesnotthetruecharacterofeachepochcomealiveinthenatureofitschildren?Whyshouldnotthehistoricchildhoodofhumanity,itsmostbeautifulunfolding,asastagenevertoreturn,exerciseaneternalcharm?There are unruly children and precocious children. Many of the old peoplesbelong in thiscategory.TheGreekswerenormalchildren.Thecharmof theirartforusisnotincontradictiontotheundevelopedstageofsocietyonwhichitgrew.[It]isitsresult,rather,andisinextricablyboundup,rather,withthefactthat theunripe social conditionsunderwhich it arose, and could alone arise,canneverreturn.

KarlMarx

44

NOTEBOOKI

October1857

Grundrisse

45

TheChapteronMoneyAlfredDarimon,Delarformedesbanques,Paris,1856.[1]

Therootof theevil is thepredominancewhichopinionobstinatelyassignstotheroleofthepreciousmetalsincirculationandexchange.(pp.1,2.)[2]BeginswiththemeasureswhichtheBanquedeFranceadoptedinOctober

1855tostemtheprogressivediminutionofitsreserves.(p.2.)Wantstogiveus a statistical tableau of the condition of this bank during the six monthsprecedingitsOctobermeasures.Tothisend,comparesitsbullionassetsduringthesethreemonthsandthefluctuationsduportefeuille,i.e.thequantityofdiscountsextendedbythebank(commercialpapers,billsofexchange initsportfolio). The figurewhich expresses the value of the securities held by thebank,represents,accordingtoDarimon,thegreaterorlesserneedfeltbythepublic for its services, or, which amounts to the same thing, therequirementsofcirculation.(p.2.)Amountstothesamething?Notatall.Ifthemassofbillspresentedfordiscountwereidenticalwiththerequirementsofcirculation,ofmonetaryturnover in theproper sense, then the turnover ofbanknoteswouldhave tobedeterminedby thequantityofdiscountedbillsofexchange.Butthismovementisontheaveragenotonlynotparallel,butoftenan inverse one. The quantity of discounted bills and the fluctuations in thisquantityexpresstherequirementsofcredit,whereasthequantityofmoneyincirculation is determined by quite different influences. In order to reach anyconclusions about circulation at all, Darimon would above all have had topresentacolumnshowingtheamountofnotesincirculationnexttothecolumnon bullion assets and the column on discounted bills. In order to discuss therequirementsofcirculation,itdidnotrequireaverygreatmentalleaptolookfirst of all at the fluctuations in circulation proper. The omission of thisnecessary link in the equation immediately betrays the bungling of thedilettante,andtheintentionalmuddlingtogetheroftherequirementsofcreditwith those of monetary circulation a confusion on which rests in fact thewholesecretofProudhonistwisdom.(Amortalitychartlistingillnessesononesideanddeathsontheother,butforgettingbirths.)Thetwocolumns(seep.3)givenbyDarimon,i.e.thebanksmetallicassetsfromApriltoSeptemberonthe

KarlMarx

46

one side, themovement of its portfolio on the other, express nothing but thetautological fact, which requires no display of statistical illustration, that thebanksportfoliofilledupwithbillsofexchangeanditsvaultsemptiedofmetalin proportion as bills of exchange were presented to it for the purpose ofwithdrawingmetal.AndthetablewhichDarimonofferstoprovethistautologydoesnotevendemonstrateitinapureform.Itshows,rather,thatthemetallicassets of the bank declined by about 144 million between 12 April and 13September 1855, while its portfolio holdings increased by about 101million.Thedeclineinbullionthusexceededtheriseindiscountedcommercialpapersby 43 million. The identity of both movements is wrecked against this netimbalanceattheendofsixmonths.Amoredetailedcomparisonofthefiguresshowsusadditionalincongruities.

Metalinbank Paperdiscountedbybank12April432,614,799fr. 12April322,904,31310May420,914,028 10May310,744,925

Inotherwords:between12Apriland10May, themetalassetsdeclineby11,700,769, while the amount of securities increases by 12,159,388; i.e. theincrease of securities exceeds the decline of metal by about half a million(458,619 fr.). [3] The opposite finding, but on a far more surprising scale,appearswhenwecomparethemonthsofMayandJune:

Metalinbank Paperdiscountedbybank10May420,914,028 10May310,744,92514June407,769,813 14June310,369,439

Thatis,between10Mayand14Junethemetalassetsofthebankdeclinedby 13,144,225 fr. Did its securities increase to the same degree? On thecontrary,theyfellduringthesameperiodby375,486fr.Here,inotherwords,wenolongerhaveamerelyquantitativedisproportionbetweenthedeclineononesideandtheriseontheother.Eventheinverserelationofbothmovementshas disappeared. An enormous decline on one side is accompanied by arelativelyweakdeclineontheother.

Grundrisse

47

Metalinbank Paperdiscountedbybank14June407,769,813 14June310,369,43912July314,629,614 12July381,699,256

ComparisonofthemonthsJuneandJulyshowsadeclineofmetalassetsby93,140,199andanincreaseofsecuritiesby71,329,817;i.e.thedeclineinmetalassetsis21,810,382greaterthantheincreaseoftheportfolio.

Metalinbank Paperdiscountedbybank12July314,629,614 12July381,699,2569August338,784,444 9August458,689,605

Hereweseeanincreaseonbothsides;metalassetsby24,154,830,andontheportfoliosidethemuchmoresignificant76,990,349.

Metalinbank [Paperdiscountedbybank]9August338,784,444 9August458,689,60513Sept.288,645,333 [13Sept.]431,390,562

The decline in metal assets of 50,139,111 fr. is here accompanied by adeclineinsecuritiesof27,299,043fr.(DespitetherestrictivemeasuresadoptedbytheBanquedeFrance,itsreservesagaindeclinedby24millioninDecember1855.)Whats sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose. The conclusions that

emerge from a sequential comparison of the six-month period have the sameclaimtovalidityasthosewhichemergefromMrDarimonscomparisonofthebeginning of the series with its end. And what does the comparison show?Conclusionswhichreciprocallydevoureachother.Twice,theportfolioincreasesmore rapidly than themetal assets decrease (April-May, June-July). Twice themetalassetsand theportfoliobothdecline,but the formermore rapidly thanthe latter (May June, August-September). Finally, during one period bothmetal assets and the portfolio increase, but the latter more rapidly than theformer.Decrease on one side, increase on the other; decrease onboth sides;increaseonbothsides;inshort,everythingexceptalawfulregularity,aboveall

KarlMarx

48

no inverse correlation, not even an interaction, since a decline in portfoliocannotbe thecauseofadecline inmetalassets, andan increase inportfoliocannotbethecauseofanincreaseinmetalassets.Aninverserelationandaninteraction are not even demonstrated by the isolated comparison whichDarimon sets up between the first and last months. Since the increase inportfolio by 101 million does not cover the decrease in metal assets, 144million,thenthepossibilityremainsopenthatthereisnocausallinkwhateverbetween the increase on one side and the decrease on the other. Instead ofproviding a solution, the statistical illustration threw up a quantity ofintersectingquestions; instead of one puzzle, a bushelful. These puzzles, it istrue, would disappear the moment Mr Darimon presented columns oncirculation of banknotes and ondeposits next to his columns onmetal assetsand portfolio (discounted paper). An increase in portfolio more rapid than adecrease in metal would then be explained by a simultaneous increase inmetallic deposits or by the fact that a portion of the banknotes issued inexchange for discounted paper was not converted into metal but remainedinstead in circulation, or, finally, that the issued banknotes immediatelyreturnedintheformofdepositsorinrepaymentofduebills,withoutenteringintocirculation.Adecreaseinmetalassetsaccompaniedbyalesserdecreaseinportfoliocouldbeexplainedbythewithdrawalofdepositsfromthebankorthepresentation of banknotes for conversion intometal, thus adversely affectingthe banks discounts through the agency of the owners of the withdrawndeposits or of the metallized notes. Finally, a lesser decline in metal assetsaccompanied by a lesser decline in portfolio could be explained on the samegrounds(weentirelyleaveoutofconsiderationthepossibilityofanoutflowofmetal to replace silver currency inside the country, since Darimon does notbring it into the field of his observations). But a table whose columnswouldhaveexplainedoneanotherreciprocallyinthismannerwouldhaveprovedwhatwas not supposed to be proved, nam